1. Introduction
All graphs mentioned in this paper are considered to be simple and finite. An edge coloring of a graph is
neighbor sum distinguishing if any two neighboring vertices differ in the sum of the colors of the edges incident to them. This notion was first introduced in [
1] and the following conjecture was proposed there.
Conjecture 1 (1-2-3 Conjecture). Every graph G without isolated edges admits a neighbor-sum-distinguishing edge coloring with the colors .
This conjecture attracted a lot of interest [
2,
3,
4,
5,
6] and for a survey we refer the reader to [
7]. The best upper bound is that every graph without isolated edges admits a neighbor-sum-distinguishing edge coloring with five colors [
8], but the 1-2-3 Conjecture remains open.
This variant of edge coloring and the 1-2-3 Conjecture motivated the introduction of similar variants of edge coloring. A
locally irregular graph is any graph in which the two end vertices of every edge differ in degree. A
locally irregular k-edge coloring, or
k-liec for short, is any edge coloring of
G with
k colors such that every color induces a locally irregular subgraph of
G. This variant of edge coloring was introduced in [
9]. A third related edge coloring variant is the
neighbor multiset-distinguishing edge coloring, where neighboring vertices must have assigned distinct multisets of colors on incident edges. In [
10], it was established that every graph without isolated edges admits the neighbor multiset-distinguishing edge coloring with four colors. Notice that every locally irregular edge coloring is also a neighbor multiset-distinguishing edge coloring, but the reverse does not have to hold. In order to see that the reverse does not hold, consider the following graph with its edge coloring:
G is a 2-path
and edges
and
are colored by 1 and 2, respectively. This is obviously not a locally irregular edge coloring but it is a neighbor multiset-distinguishing edge coloring as
are the (multi)sets of colors at vertices
a,
b,
c, respectively.
In this paper, we focus our attention on locally irregular edge colorings exclusively, and we say a graph is
colorable if it admits such a coloring. The
locally irregular chromatic index of a colorable graph
denoted by
, is the smallest
k, such that
G admits a
k-liec. In [
9], the family of graphs
has been defined as follows:
contains the triangle ;
if G is a graph from , then a graph H obtained from G by identifying a vertex of degree which belongs to a triangle of with an end-vertex of an even length path or with an end vertex of an odd-length path such that the other end vertex of that path is identified with a vertex of a triangle, also belongs to .
Note that every graph
has an odd size. A
cactus graph is any graph in which cycles are pairwise edge disjoint. Notice that
is a special family of cacti. Additionally, if we imagine triangles to be vertices and paths attached to vertices of a triangle as edges, we might informally say that
G has tree-like structure. For the sake of simplicity, we define a broader family
as the family obtained from
by introducing to it all odd-length paths and all odd-length cycles. Notice that
is a subclass of vertex-disjoint cactus graphs. It was established in [
9] that a connected graph
G is not colorable if and only if
. Additionally, the following conjecture on the irregular chromatic index was proposed.
Conjecture 2 (Local Irregularity Conjecture). For every connected graph , it holds that
Let us mention some of the results related to Conjecture 2. For general graphs it was first established
[
11], then it was lowered to
[
12]. For some special classes of graphs Conjecture 2 is shown to hold, namely for trees [
13], graphs with minimum degree at least
[
14],
k-regular graphs where
[
9].
In this paper we will show that every unicyclic graph G which does not belong to admits a 3-liec, thus establishing that Conjecture 2 holds for unicyclic graphs. We will further extend this result to cactus graphs with vertex-disjoint cycles. Finally, we will provide an example of a colorable graph B with showing that Conjecture 2 does not hold in general.
2. Revisiting the Trees
Since a unicyclic graph is obtained from a tree by adding a single edge to it, we first need to introduce the notation and several important results for trees from [
13]. Additionally, we will establish several auxiliary results for trees, which will be useful throughout the paper.
First, a
shrub is any tree rooted at a leaf. The only edge in a shrub
G incident to the root we will call the
root edge of
G. An
almost locally irregular k-edge coloring of a shrub
or
k-aliec for short, is an edge coloring of
G which is either
k-liec or a coloring in which only the root edge is not locally irregular (notice that in this case the root edge is an isolated edge of its color, i.e., it is not adjacent to any other edge of the same color). A
proper k-aliec is
k-aliec which is not a
k-liec. The following results for trees were established in [
13].
Theorem 1. Every shrub admits a 2-aliec.
Theorem 2. For every colorable tree it holds that Moreover, if
If an edge coloring uses at most three colors, we will denote those colors by A 1-liec (resp. 2-liec, 3-liec) of a graph G will be denoted by (resp. ). A 2-aliec of a shrub G will be denoted by where a is the color of the root edge in G. Let be four colors, if is a 2-liec of G in colors a and then 2-liec of G in colors c and d is obtained from by replacing colors a and b for c and d respectively, i.e., if and only if Particularly, 2-(a)liec is called the inversion of the 2-(a)liec where colors a and b are replaced. Moreover, let be an edge coloring of a graph , for and let these graphs be pairwise edge disjoint, i.e., for any two distinct i and j. For a graph G such that by we will denote the edge coloring of G such that an edge e is colored by if and only if
For any color of the edge coloring say a, we define the a-degree of a vertex as the number of edges incident to v which are colored by a. The a-degree of a vertex v is denoted by Assume that a vertex has k neighbors such that each is colored by Then, the sequence is called the a-sequence of the vertex v. We usually assume that neighbors of v are denoted so that the a-sequence is non-increasing.
Throughout the paper we will use the technique of finding a 2-liec for trees introduced in [
13]. Namely, if
T is a tree with maximum degree 5 or more, then
T admits a 2-liec according to Theorem 2. Otherwise, if the maximum degree of
T is at most
let
v be a vertex from
T and
all the neighbors of
v for
Notice that
T consists of
k shrubs
starting at
let
denote a shrub with the root edge
and let
denote a 2-aliec of
which exists according to Theorem 1. Recall that
for every
The coloring
is called a
shrub-based edge coloring of
We say that a shrub-based coloring
is
inversion resistant if neither
is a 2-liec of
T nor any of the colorings which can be obtained from
by color inversion in some of the shrubs
Let us now introduce the following lemma which stems from the technique used in [
13].
Lemma 1. Let T be a tree with and v a vertex from T of degree Let be all the shrubs of T rooted at v and let be a 2-aliec of If is a 2-liec of for every then the shrub-based coloring can be inversion resistant in two cases only:
If and the a-sequence of v by is ;
If and the a-sequence of v by is .
Proof. If then the shrub-based coloring of T equals which is 2-liec. If then would be a 2-liec of
If then the a-degree of v by is and inverting colors in one of the shrubs would decrease the a-degree of v to 2. Therefore, the a-sequence of v by must contain 3 and Considering the two possibilities and , we see that would be 2-liec in both of them. The only remaining possibility is and it is inversion resistant.
Finally, assume By a similar consideration as above, we see that the a-sequence of v by must contain and Therefore, we must consider the possibilities then then It is easily seen that only in the case , the shrub-based coloring is inversion resistant. □
A spidey is a tree with radius at most two which consists of a central vertex u of degree at least 3 and the remaining vertices have degree at most 2 and are at distance at most 2 from u. Notice that every spidey is locally irregular, hence it admits a 1-liec. We say that a vertex v of a spidey G is a short leg if it is a leaf which is a neighbor of the central vertex of
Lemma 2. Let H be a spidey with a short leg v and let K be a tree. Let G be a graph obtained from H and K by identifying the vertex v with a vertex from Then, G admits a 3-liec such that all edges of are colored by a same color.
Proof. Since
H is a spidey,
H admits a 1-liec, say
. Assume first that a tree
K is not colorable, i.e.,
K is an odd-length path. This implies there exists in
K an edge
incident with
v, such that
is a collection of even paths which, therefore, admits 2-liec
The edge coloring
of
G defined by
is a 3-liec of
Assume now that K is a colorable tree. If K admits a 2-liec then is a 3-liec of G with the desired property. So, we may assume K is a colorable tree which does not admit a 2-liec. Theorem 2 implies Let and let be all the shrubs of K rooted at By Theorem 1, each shrub admits a 2-aliec where without loss of generality we may assume that is a proper 2-aliec if and only if We distinguish the following four cases with respect to
Case 1: Notice that and If and then would be a 2-liec of a contradiction. Otherwise, the shrub-based coloring would be a 2-liec of again a contradiction.
Case 2: If then is a 2-liec of a contradiction. If then is a 2-liec of a contradiction. If then let be all the neighbors of v in The shrub-based coloring is not a 2-liec only if the a-degree of or by is Without loss of generality we may assume that a-degree of by is but then is a 2-liec of a contradiction.
Case 3: In this case,
is the only shrub with a proper 2-aliec
Let
be the neighbor of
v in
we define the coloring
of
K as follows
Notice that
is not a liec of
but
is a 3-liec of
with the desired property that all edges of
H are colored by a same color, in this case
c.
Case 4: Notice that in this case Lemma 1 applies on
K and
Therefore, the only cases when
K does not admit a 2-liec are: i)
and the
a-sequence of
v by the shrub-based coloring
is
or ii)
and the
a-sequence of
v by
is
In the first case the coloring
is a 3-liec of
G such that
is colored by the same color
c, as it is illustrated in
Figure 1. In the other case, the coloring
is a 3-liec of
G such that
is colored by a same color, as it is illustrated in
Figure 2. □
3. Unicyclic Graphs
In this section, we will establish Conjecture 2 for unicyclic graphs. It is already known that there exist colorable unicyclic graphs which do not admit 2-liec, but require three colors in order for edge coloring to be locally irregular, namely cycles of length for . We will show that such cycles are not an isolated family of unicyclic graphs that require three colors. The main result for unicyclic graphs is established through the following two lemmas in which we will consider separately cases whether the cycle of G is a triangle or not.
Lemma 3. Let G be a unicyclic graph with the unique cycle being a triangle. If then
Proof. Let be the triangle in G, let denote the connected component of which contains Since there must exist a vertex on C such that is not a pendant even length path, say it is Let and let First notice that both and are trees and that Since is not a pendant path of even length, it follows that is not an odd length path, hence it is colorable. Let be a 3-liec of Without loss of generality we may assume that Let H be the subgraph of induced by all edges incident to in We may assume for every namely if this follows from the local irregularity of otherwise, it follows from Lemma 2 applied on H and every component of repeatedly.
Let us now consider the graph
and notice that it is a shrub rooted at
with the root edge
By Theorem 1 there exists a 2-aliec
of
If
is a 2-liec, then
is a 3-liec of
G. Additionally, if
is a proper 2-aliec of
, then
is colorable and let
be a 3-liec of
such that
for every edge
by Lemma 2. We define the edge coloring
of
G as follows
It is easily seen that
is a 3-liec of
□
Let us now consider unicyclic graphs with larger cycles.
Lemma 4. Let G be a unicyclic graph with the unique cycle being of length at least four. If then
Proof. If G is a cycle, then implies that G is an even-length cycle and hence admits a 3-liec. So, we may assume G is not a cycle, i.e., at least one vertex from the cycle of G is of degree at least three. Denote the cycle in G by with Without loss of generality we may assume that is the vertex with maximum degree among vertices from We distinguish the following two cases with respect to
Case 1: Let denote the set of all edges incident to in G except the edge and let H denote the subgraph of G induced by The assumption implies so H is a spidey in which every leg is short. Let be the connected component of which contains and let Let be all connected components of Each is a tree, so Lemma 2 can be applied to H and for every . We conclude that there exists a 3-liec of such that for every On the other hand, is a shrub rooted at with the root edge so admits 2-aliec according to Theorem 1.
If
is a 2-liec of
then
is a 3-liec of
Additionally, if
is a proper 2-aliec of
, then
is colorable and let
be a 3-liec of
such that
for every edge
by Lemma 2. We define the edge coloring
of
G as follows
It is easily seen that thus defined
is a 3-liec of
Case 2: Let be the set of all edges incident to in G and H a subgraph of G induced by Let be the connected component of which contains and let Similarly as in the previous case, there exists a 3-liec of such that for every Notice that since is the vertex with maximum degree among vertices from Now we distinguish two possibilities with regard to
If
then
is a shrub rooted in
with the root edge
According to Theorem 1, there exists a 2-aliec
of
If
is 2-liec of
then
is a 3-liec of
Otherwise,
defined by
is a 3-liec of
If
then consider
to be a tree rooted at
which consists of two shrubs
and
the first with the root edge
and the other with the root edge
where
is the only neighbor of
which does not belong to the cycle
C. Theorem 1 implies that there exist 2 aliecs
and
of
and
respectively. If both
and
are a 2-liec of the respective shrub, then
is a 3-liec of
If both
and
are a proper 2-aliec of the respective shrub, then
is a 3-liec of
The only remaining possibility is that precisely one of
and
say
, is a proper 2-aliec of the respective shrub. In this case we define the coloring
of
as follows
Since
it is easily seen that
is a 3-liec of
□
The previous two lemmas yield the following result.
Theorem 3. Let G be a unicyclic graph. If then
A natural question that arises is whether the bound
is tight, i.e., are there colorable unicyclic graphs which are not 2-colorable. The family of cycles of length
are such graphs, but this family is not an isolated case, there exist other unicyclic graphs which require three colors, for example, the graph from
Figure 3. One can assure infinitely many such graphs, for example, by taking longer threads of suitable parity in the given graph.
4. Cacti with Vertex Disjoint Cycles
In this section, we will extend the result from the previous section to cacti with vertex disjoint cycles. We will also show that the result does not extend to all cacti by providing an example of a cactus graph with four cycles which is colorable, but requires 4 colors for a locally irregular edge coloring. This establishes that Conjecture 2 does not hold in general. We first need to introduce several useful notions in order to deal with cacti.
Let G be a cactus graph with at least two cycles, let C be a cycle in G and let u be a vertex from We say that u is a root vertex of C if the connected component of which contains u is a cyclic graph. A cycle C of G is a proper end cycle if contains at most one cyclic connected component. Every cactus graph with vertex disjoint cycles contains at least two proper end cycles, given it is not a unicyclic graph.
Theorem 4. Let G be a cactus graph with vertex disjoint cycles. If then
Proof. The proof is by induction on the number of cycles in If G is a unicyclic graph, then the claim holds by Theorem 3. Assume that the claim holds for all cacti with fewer than p cycles, where . Let G be a cactus graph with p cycles. We will show that G admits a 3-liec and this will establish the claim of the theorem. Let C be a proper end cycle of G, the root vertex of and v the only neighbor of which belongs to the cyclic component of Denote the other neighbors of by so that and belong to the cycle C. In what follows, we distinguish two cases.
Suppose first that
is colorable. Then, it admits a 3-liec
where the edges
and
must be colored by a same color, say color
c. Notice that
is a shrub rooted at
with the root edge
By Theorem 1,
admits a 2-aliec
. If
is a 2-liec of
, then
is a 3-liec of
Otherwise, if
is a proper 2-aliec of
then the restriction of
to
is a 2-liec of that graph. Notice that
does not belong to
, so it is colorable and by induction hypothesis it admits a 3-liec
in which edges
and
must be colored by a same color (say color
c) since
Now, we infer that
is a 3-liec of
G.
Suppose now that is not colorable. Assume first is not colorable. Notice that is a unicyclic graph, so if the cycle of is a triangle, then the assumption that and are not colorable would imply , a contradiction. Otherwise, if is a unicyclic graph on a larger cycle, then it is not colorable only if it is an odd-length cycle. In this case let w be the only neighbor of distinct from let and Notice that by induction hypothesis is colorable and admits a 3-liec for which we may assume and Additionally, notice that is an even length path, so it admits a 2-liec where we may assume that the edge of incident to is colored by Then is a 3-liec of
Suppose now that is colorable. Since is not colorable, the edge of must belong to an even length path hanging at a vertex of a triangle in so the graph contains an odd-length path hanging at a vertex of a triangle, which means so it is colorable. Therefore, by induction hypothesis admits a 3-liec Since is a leaf in , we may assume that By Theorem 3, admits 3-liec Since the degree of in equals two, we may assume that the colors of edges and are from Therefore, is a 3-liec of G.
Case 2: Let H be the subgraph of G induced by the set of all edges incident to in Denote the connected components of in the following way, let be the component which contains v and the component which contains and . Additionally, let and We may assume is colorable, as otherwise G would contain a proper end cycle which is a triangle with the root vertex of degree 3, which would reduce to the previous case. Let and
Suppose first that the tree
is not colorable. This implies that it is an odd-length path. Notice that
as a shrub rooted at
admits a proper 2-aliec
and since it is proper we have
Since
is colorable, by induction hypothesis it admits a 3-liec
where we may assume
Since
is a shrub rooted at
with the root edge
it admits a 2-aliec
If
is a proper 2-aliec of
, then
is a 3-liec of
Otherwise, if
is a 2-liec of
then let us consider the graph
It is colorable by the same argument as
so it admits a 3-liec
in which
and
must be colored by a same color, say
c. Then
is a 3-liec of
Suppose now that
is a colorable tree, so it admits a 3-liec
We may assume that
for every
as this follows either from
or from Lemma 2 applied to
as a spidey and every connected component of
as
K. As for
recall that it is colorable, so by induction hypothesis, it has a 3-liec
. Since
is a leaf in
we may assume
Let us now consider the graph
Recal that it is a shrub rooted at
with the root edge
Hence, by Theorem 1 the graph
admits a 2-aliec
If
is a 2-liec of
then
is a 3-liec of
Otherwise, we define
, and notice that
is a spidey. According to Lemma 2, the graph
admits a 3-liec
such that
for every
We conclude that
is a 3-liec of
□
Let us now consider the so called
bow-tie graph
B shown in
Figure 4. This is a cactus graph with four cycles, but in which cycles are not vertex disjoint. This graph is colorable and admits the 4-liec shown in
Figure 4, but it does not admit a
k-liec for
since the two end vertices of the cut edge must have the degree three in the color of that edge. Hence, for the bow-tie graph
B it holds that
We conclude that Conjecture 2 does not hold in general.
The consideration of the bow-tie graph gives rise to the following questions: are there any other graphs for which Conjecture 2 does not hold, do all colorable cacti admit a 4-liec, what is the thight upper bound on of general graphs? We believe the following conjecture holds, which is a weaker form of the Local Irregularity Conjecture.
Conjecture 3. Every connected graph G which does not belong to satisfies